Agenda item

            The Principal Planning Officer explained that the application sought to amend permission Z/2013/0913/F to provide flexibility whereby the building could be occupied as either Class B1(a) or B1(c), or a combination of both. 

            She stated that the applicant was willing to enter into a Section 76 planning agreement to provide construction employability and skills in respect of the specific occupier fit-out of the building and specific restrictions on the occupancy of the building, in order to minimise the potential for impacts on the city centre.

            She informed the Committee that the case officer report had omitted reference to a letter of support from the NI Chamber of Commerce and Industry which echoed many of the pointes made by the Belfast Chamber in its letter of support and stated that the application had the potential to make a substantial contribution to helping Belfast meet its demand for high-quality office space, supporting economic growth and attracting inward investment.

            She referred the Committee to the following key issues for consideration:

·        Principle of the proposed uses;

·        Environmental impacts;

·        Health impacts;

·        Climate change;

·        Traffic and access;

·        Section 76 planning agreement; and

·        Pre-Application Community Consultation.

            She pointed out that, since the report had been published, an additional objection had been received from Gravis Planning which reinforced the previous grounds of objection and, in addition, raised issues with the methodology employed by Lisney in its report and that the policy did not recognised ESG credential or different grades of office space.  She explained that the concerns raised had been addressed within the report.

            The Principal Planning Officer summarised the material considerations, consultation and assessment to the Committee.  She reported that the proposal was in conflict with Policies EC3 and EC6 of the Plan Strategy as it had not been demonstrated that the level of proposed Class B1(a) floor space could not be accommodated in a city centre location and the sequential test had not been met.

            She stated that it was the officers’ view that there were overriding material considerations whereby there was an exceptional set of circumstances that outweighed the policy conflict.

            She reported that it was recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. M. Hanvey, Gravis Planning, to the meeting, who spoke in objection to the application.

            Mr. Hanvey explained that the recommendation to approve the application at contradicted the objectives and planning policies of the Council’s Local Development Plan (LDP) - Plan Strategy and wider regional planning policy and that this had been confirmed by the Council’s Local Development Plan Team in its most recent consultation response.

            He stated that the original application had been specific in relation to the split between floor area and for Use Class B1(a) and Use Class B1(c), with the majority of the floorspace being for Use Class B1(c) or ‘Research and Development’ purposes.

            He stated that the current application would more than treble the amount of office floorspace that had originally been envisaged for Phase II of Titanic Quarter.  He added that the policy was clear, in that Class B1(a) uses would only be permitted in a major or strategic employment locations where it could not be accommodated in a city centre location and that it would otherwise result in the loss of a significant inward investment. 

            Mr. Hanvey stated that the Lisney report had omissions in its summary of available accommodation in the market, which included All State’s building, Lanyon Plaza, The Soloist and Adelaide Exchange.  He added that buildings such as 9 Lanyon Place and the Waterside Tower were marketed as Grade A office buildings.

            He stated that the Council’s Local Development Plan clearly stated that Grade A certification or BREEAM standards were not policy considerations and that market intervention to change or widen the use classification and Olympic House, to assist private sector developer where they had failed to achieve product market fit, was not the responsibility of the planning system.

            He concluded by stating that the vitality and viability of Belfast city centre was a challenge for a variety of reasons and that the proposal would only exacerbate the challenges for retailers and service providers that were already closing in significant numbers.  He asked the Committee to give his submission due consideration in the determination of the application.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. S. McKee, Turley, Mr. J. Eyre, Titanic Qtr Ltd., Mr. B. Lavery, CBRE, and Mr. C. O’Hara, RPS Tetra Tech, to the meeting, speaking on behalf of the applicant.

            Mr. McKee explained that Olympic House was a high-quality Grade A BREEAM Excellent and ESG compliant office building that had been fully constructed to shell and core standard and ready for occupation.  He stated that it had the ability to support over 1360 jobs and represented a £40m investment in the city.

            He reported that, despite active marketing prior to, during construction and post completion five years ago, there had been not tenancies secured, despite there having been a series of expressions of interest from prospective occupiers, and the building remained unoccupied.

            He stated that CBRE, Lisney and Invest NI had confirmed that the demand for B1(c) accommodation was very limited and not expected to change in the short to mid-term.  He explained that Lisney had stated that a very significant challenge for Belfast was that there was just 220,000 square foot of Grade A BREEAM Excellent accommodation available which was less than a one-year supply and that the lack of supply was compounded by the fact that no new speculative accommodation of that calibre was likely to come forward within the next three years and perhaps longer, due to market rents persisting at £25 per square foot.

            Mr. McKee stated that CBRE and Lisney had also confirmed that other competing cities were carrying strong levels of unrestricted accommodation of the same calibre, ready for occupation and that Lisney had advised that the proposed amendments to the Olympic House permission would not negatively impact Belfast’s existing city centre office market and instead, would highlight a greater set of concerns that could arise from a shortage of Grade A BREEAM excellent office space.

            He concluded by stating that the Council’s Planning Service had appropriately weighed the prevailing planning policy context and key material considerations and found consistent with its commercial advisors, Lisney, that there would not be significant adverse impact on the city centre and that the proposal was acceptable.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement, and deal with any other issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Committee further agreed that, should the planning agreement not be completed by 31st May 2025, the application would be reported back to the Committee for reconsideration.

(The Committee agreed to consider the following two applications together.)

(Councillors T. Brooks and Whyte left the meeting for the following two items.)